What is it about the Dalai Lama that enrages China so much?
Beijing's latest outburst against the Buddhist leader came during his visit to Australia. China did all it could before his visit to prevent the Dalai Lama from meeting Australian Prime Minister John Howard and Labour Party leader Kevin Rudd.
And it almost succeeded. But this is an election year in Australia and the Dalai Lama is loved and respected by many Australians. More than anything else, the fear of losing votes led Howard and Rudd to meet with the Tibetan leader.
Australia sought to limit Beijing's anger by describing the meetings with the Dalai Lama as religious in nature and without any political implications.
Gently rebuffing the Chinese pressure, Howard said: "As prime minister, I take the view I will decide who I will meet ? he is a figure in my view that I should meet."
But to reassure Beijing, he said: "It doesn't alter our foreign policy; it doesn't alter our relationship with China."
Describing the Dalai Lama "as a major world religious figure," Rudd said: "Our discussions centered on questions of religion and faith."
Canberra is generally mindful of Beijing's reaction in such situations, as trade relations between the nations have grown considerably. China is expected to soon overtake Japan as Australia's largest trading partner.
China has expanded trade relationships with Australia not to curry political favor, but as part of its ravenous search for mineral and energy imports. In short, Australia has what China needs and both sides know it.
Beijing knows that Canberra is not interested in Tibetan separatism, but China must continue ostracizing the Dalai Lama because he is the personification of Tibet.
Beijing seeks to ostracize Taiwan internationally in much the same way.
Moreover, for many years now the Dalai Lama has renounced separatism for Tibet. He reiterated this position while in Australia and said that he favored autonomy for Tibet within China, with Tibetans maintaining their cultural and spiritual identity.
In an interview on Australian television's Dateline program, he maintained that his advocacy of respect for Tibet's culture and spirituality was indeed in tune with Chinese President Hu Jintao's (
However, as things stand today, not only are Tibet's distinct cultural and religious traditions in danger of being obliterated, China also seems to be determined to wipe out Tibetan ethnic identity itself. The influx of the Han Chinese into Tibet and their control of all institutions and economic activity there are increasingly marginalizing Tibetans in their own land.
In the capital, Lhasa, for instance, Tibetans are said to now number only one-third of the population. And with the opening of the new rail line linking Tibet with China, more and more Han Chinese are pouring into Tibet, making life even harder for its original inhabitants.
The region is simply being overwhelmed by outsiders with nothing but contempt for Tibetans and their traditions.
When Tibetans show the least bit resistance to the multi-pronged Chinese onslaught, they risk spending the remainder of their lives in prison -- or worse.
Faced with such a bleak situation, it is not surprising that the Dalai Lama strives to prevent the marginalization of his people. He has come to realize over the years that Tibetan independence is not likely to happen, considering China's might and international clout.
Thus, the only feasible and practical solution under the circumstances is for Tibetans to maintain their cultural and spiritual identity as an autonomous region under China's control. Under this arrangement, the national government in Beijing would be responsible for foreign defense, currency and other central government functions.
On the face of it, this seems like a fairly sensible solution in which China would retain control while Tibet would maintain its regional and cultural identity.
But the series of talks over the years between Beijing and the Dalai Lama's representatives in this regard haven't gone anywhere. Basically, Beijing doesn't trust the Dalai Lama. It fears that his advocacy of autonomy for Tibet is really a call for separatism. It is afraid of Tibetans running Tibet instead of Han Chinese, and it wouldn't like such an arrangement to become a precedent for other minorities in China.
In addition, Beijing doesn't feel any urgency to resolve the issue. With China's expanding international economic and military clout, more and more governments feel obliged to take China's sensitivities into account where the Dalai Lama and Tibet are concerned.
Through its policy of making Han Chinese the dominant ethnic group in Tibet, Beijing hopes to put a permanent end to the Tibetan "issue." And things look promising for China in this regard. Therefore, Beijing doesn't feel any need to revive awareness of the issue when it might fade away in due course.
For Beijing, the ideal position for the Dalai Lama would be some sort of high-sounding figurehead status. In this Chinese fantasy, the Dalai Lama would confer legitimacy on China's Tibetan policies to speed up the Han Chinese takeover.
The Dalai Lama, however, refuses to take part in China's scheme at the cost of his homeland. But he is not going to live forever, and China can afford to wait him out.
With the Dalai Lama gone, Tibet might wither on the vine and, lo and behold, China would have permanently solved the problem.
That, at least, would seem to be the thinking of China's communist rulers.
Unfortunately for Beijing, this is too neat a solution. And for complex issues of national and cultural identity, neat solutions are hard to come by.
The Soviet Union discovered this the hard way when its empire collapsed and their erstwhile neat solution of resolving issues of nationality with strong central control was shattered as one republic after another broke away.
The conventional wisdom among China's rulers is that they have learned from the failed Soviet state and that they are thus safe from such catastrophes.
Weren't their counterparts in the Soviet Union also quite sure of themselves, until their house of cards collapsed from within?
Sushil Seth is a writer based in Australia.
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Xiaomi Corp founder Lei Jun (雷軍) on May 22 made a high-profile announcement, giving online viewers a sneak peek at the company’s first 3-nanometer mobile processor — the Xring O1 chip — and saying it is a breakthrough in China’s chip design history. Although Xiaomi might be capable of designing chips, it lacks the ability to manufacture them. No matter how beautifully planned the blueprints are, if they cannot be mass-produced, they are nothing more than drawings on paper. The truth is that China’s chipmaking efforts are still heavily reliant on the free world — particularly on Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing
Keelung Mayor George Hsieh (謝國樑) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) on Tuesday last week apologized over allegations that the former director of the city’s Civil Affairs Department had illegally accessed citizens’ data to assist the KMT in its campaign to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) councilors. Given the public discontent with opposition lawmakers’ disruptive behavior in the legislature, passage of unconstitutional legislation and slashing of the central government’s budget, civic groups have launched a massive campaign to recall KMT lawmakers. The KMT has tried to fight back by initiating campaigns to recall DPP lawmakers, but the petition documents they
RSS